IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-769-2025(O&M)

Date of decision: 21.01.2026 Harshdeep Kaur & Others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Farman & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-2311-CII-2025 This is an application under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 6 days in re-filing the appeal. (cid:1)

(cid:1) (cid:1) After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of Clerk of the learned counsel for the applicants, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 6 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned.

CM-2312-CII-2025 This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 27 days in filing the appeal.

After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the appellant No.1, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 27 days in filing present appeal is condoned.

MAIN CASE Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.93,37,200/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 14.08.2024 passed in MACP Case No.153 dated 17.05.2023 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The four claimants are the 30-year-old widow; 3-and-a-half-year-old daughter; 60-year-old mother and 53-year-old father of deceased Gurpreet Singh, who was 31 years old at the time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that deceased Gurpreet Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 15.03.2023 due to the rash and negligent driving of Bolero Pickup bearing registration No.UP-11CT-2637 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation amount.

3. The only ground on which learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation is that interest has been granted on the lower side as only 7.5% and the same should be 9%.

4. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

5. Perusal of record of the case shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellants that prior to the accident, the deceased was working as Technical Co-ordinator in the office of ADC (D), Fatehgarh Sahib and drawing a salary of Rs.43,121/- per month including Rs.250/- as mobile allowance. To prove the said employment and income of the deceased, the claimants had examined CW1 Gagandeep Kang, ADC (D), Fatehgarh Sahib, who had adduced sufficient documentary evidence to prove that deceased was employed in the office of the ADC, Fatehgarh Sahib.

6. It had further been pleaded by the claimants that the deceased was also having agricultural income of Rs.30,000/- per month. However, as no proof of income was produced, learned Tribunal had assessed monthly income of the deceased as Rs.42,871/-, after deducting mobile allowance of Rs.250/-.

7. However, CW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that deceased was only working on contract basis; meaning thereby that deceased was not a regular employee in the office of ADC, Fatehgarh Sahib and could be removed by Government at any point of time. Despite this fact, learned Tribunal has made an addition of 50% towards future prospects, which could not have been done.

8. Age of the deceased was proved to be 31 years at the time of accident, on the basis of his Birth Certificate (Ex.C7), wherein his date of birth is